Saturday, May 27, 2006

Indonesian Earthquake

A serious earthquake has struck Indonesia, with reports of over 3,000 killed. On the Globe and Mail website, a discussion has started. The first poster, Patricia, noted the reported escalation in the frequency of earthquakes over the past century and gently suggested that this might be a sign pointing to the end of the age. The posters pounced. They denounced her for her deluded Christian thinking, and openly mocked her faith. I thought they were a bit rough on her, so this is the counter-post that I submitted to the site.

* * *

Everybody seems to be ganging up on #1 for her comment. However, it was based on a statement made by Jesus Christ. The One who preached peace and calmed the sea by his word also stated that as end of this age approached there would be "earthquakes in divers places". So, it is pretty hard, when an earthquake occurs, for a follower of Jesus not to be reminded of this saying. Of course, those who choose to mock such statements are perfectly free to do so; the Bible speaks clearly that the last days would be characterized by such persons.

(The Globe and Mail declined to post my submission.)

* * *

Having said that, what should a Christian's view of natural disasters be? When the tsunami and when Katrina hit, people asked, "where was God?". I heard well-meaning Christians state that God was in the hearts and hands of the Christians who rushed to the scene to provide relief, suggesting he was in no way responsible for the event itself.

This is an inadequate apologetic.

To suggest that when a natural disaster strikes God is nowhere to be found suggests that either a) God is indifferent and/or uninvolved in Earth's activities, or b) God is impotent to prevent such disasters. Neither of these assertions give adequate glory to God.

The fact is, God is sovereign, and, whether God directly causes a disaster, or simply permits it to happen and fails to prevent it, God is the sovereign ruler of this planet.

Some people suggest that if God were behind a disaster, it would make him cruel and unrighteous. But this would be wrong. The facts are these: A) mankind, as a race, has turned its back on God, and has rebelled against Him. B) Natural disasters are one of the effects of this corporate rebellion. The apostle Paul makes it clear that nature itself is in bondage because of sin. C) All men and women are sinners before a holy God, deserving of punishment.

The Old Testament does not hesitate to attribute natural disasters to God. In the New Testament, however, a natural-disaster-in-the-making (the storm on the sea of Galilee) was abated by the intervention of the Son of God.

So it is certainly fitting to cry out to God for mercy, for forgiveness, for grace, and for the alleviation of suffering from natural disasters.

The problem is, the notion of judgment is simply out of fashion in today's world. People have rights, not righteousness. They view the Bible as fairy tale, when in fact its message is "the power of God unto salvation to all that believe". They believe that there is no divine accountability, no eternal judgment, that people can sin and cheat and steal and kill in this life and there will be no eternal consequences, no God to make things right. There is no fear of God before their eyes. And, since the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, it means that the world is, collectively, descending into foolishness.

"Lord, have mercy on the people of Indonesia, whom you love in Jesus Christ. May the gospel be preached to them, and may they reach out to you in this time of affliction. May many souls be won to Christ. May signs and wonders accompany the preaching of the gospel. In judgment, remember mercy. Amen."

* * *

And, while mockers may predominate the Globe and Mail post, no doubt it will be the Christians who come through with charitable aid to the people of Indonesia.

Thank God for the gospel. Thank God for grace. And thank God for Christians. Amen!

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Caledonia: A branch is extended...

It's being reported today that the natives blockading Caledonia have offered the locals a branch, as a sign of goodwill. (Canadians, for their part, pass the natives eight billion dollars each and every year. Imagine each dollar is a branch. That's a lot of branches.)

The passing of a branch from the Indian protesters to the law-abiding citizens of Caledonia is a nice gesture, but it is like kidnappers passing an olive branch to their captives.

It doesn't undo the lawless behaviour. It doesn't undo the destruction of property. It doesn't undo the economic, psychological, and social damage inflicted upon an innocent community.

An apology and offer of economic reparations would be more appropriate. Even if it were paid with dollars given to them by the taxpayers of Caledonia, and other Canadians.

Thursday, May 18, 2006

For less than the price of a cup of coffee...

Gwyn Morgan, former President and CEO of Encana, is a decent man and a great Canadian. He offered to serve his country for one dollar -- less than the price of a cup of coffee. He assembled a team of volunteers, and was ready to go.

For this, he was grilled and vilified by a parliamentary committee stacked with Liberals and NDP partisans, who ruled that he was unfit to serve his country.

His crime: he is not one of "them"; he does not share their inclusive, ultra-tolerant left-wing head-in-the-sand social idealism. Anyone who does not fit their tolerant, inclusive view cannot be tolerated and must be excluded. He simply stated the obvious fact that certain classes of immigrants contribute disproportionately to crime. And for this, he was rejected.

When I heard of his rejection, I dashed off a short letter to the National Post. It was published, along with another one, as the featured Letters of the Day. It simply said:

"The rejection of Gwynn Morgan, Encana CEO, by the Champions of Inclusion and Tolerance™ who grilled him says more about the committee's narrow-minded intolerance than it does about any supposed shortcomings on the part of Mr Morgan."

Mr Morgan offered to serve his country for a dollar -- less than the price of a coffee. This fact escaped at least one contributor to a Globe and Mail list who complained that he was just another Conservative "at the trough". I think she was right. Serving for a dollar is, unlike a Liberal, a Conservative at the trough -- serving. Another, in a fit of delusionary excess than surely only those on the left are capable of, stated that by the Liberal and NDP committee members' vote against Mr Morgan, "Canada has spoken".

Can you believe such delusionary arrogance?

Another poster suggested that PM Harper and the Conservatives remind him of Hitler. And he actually meant it. Left-wingers have really worked themselves into a frothy mental state. If being disconnected from reality constitutes a form of mental illness then being an extreme-leftist thinker surely qualifies.

The letter was published this morning. This evening I received an unexpected phone call from Bill Phillips in Halifax, who asked me if I was the Richard Ball who wrote letters published in the National Post. I said I was. He thanked me for writing them. I appreciated his call.

I've also received calls from Wayne Eyre, an excellent letter-writer from Saskatoon, and another local fellow, who was moving away, who wanted to let me know he appreciated my letters to both the National Post and the local Guardian paper. All appreciated.

Still, it's a sad, shameful day for Canada.

But I admire PM Harper for sticking to his guns and refusing to send another candidate for the committee to consider.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Of Moose and Men...

For years humans have been maligned for extinguishing the wooly mammoth.

All the while, moose stood quietly by.

Now, it turns out, the moose were responsible for the wooly mammoth's demise.

On behalf of the human species, I expect a full apology from the moose community, as well as significant reparations (which they can just pop in the freezer).

Sunday, May 07, 2006

Earthism: the new frontier

We've had racism. We've had sexism. We've had ageism. We've had speciesism (at least, I think we have). Are you ready for another "ism"? How about "earthism"? People who focus on Earth to the exclusion of other globes. It appears there's a lot of earthists out there.

Take global warming. You know -- the earth is warming, AND IT'S ALL OUR FAULT. Well, studies indicate that not only is Earth warming, but so is Mars, and so is Jupiter. To care about the earth but not jupiter or mars is discriminatory, biased, narrow-minded, prejudiced, mean-spirited, and bigoted. It's earthist, that's what it is.

Frankly, I don't want to have anything to do with earthism, or earthists, for that matter.

I just hope that all the earthists clanging about global warming and climate change will raise their sights and consider the Big Picture.

Let's end the scourge of narrow-minded earthism.

Friday, May 05, 2006

Global warming now a proven fact...

For those head-in-the sand conservatives who continue to deny the consensus of the liberal political-media complex and the taxpayer-funded scientific community, global warming has now been conclusively demonstrated.

The globe I am talking about is Mars.

Yep. The planet Mars. Warming. Ice-caps melting.

(Source: Astronomy, January 2006 issue, etc. -- via

In response, proponents of man-made global warming now argue that this proves that Mars is inhabited by human-like abusers of the environment, probably driving big SUV-type vehicles and burning carbon-based fuels.

(And they probably vote Republican, too.)

"It's the best evidence for extraterrestrial intelligent life yet discovered", a female spokespersonwoman for the Equivocation Foundation reportedly said.

Apparently Prime Minister Stephen Harper has offered to send former Prime Minister Paul Martin along with NDP leader Jack Layton on a fact-finding mission to study a remote region of Mars known as the Keeohtoe Protocol.

Thursday, May 04, 2006

A response to Richard Cohen...

Richard Cohen published an article recently in the Washington Post in which he praised darwinian evolution and ridiculed those who believe in Intelligent Design. Here is an expanded version of my response to him. It is a Christian apologetic for the existence of God rooted in philosophy and logic.

Dear Mr. Cohen,

Time and space must have had a beginning, because if time were eternal, there would be an infinite number of moments preceding the present, and the present could not be reached. If you believe in the present, you must believe in a finite universe.

Once you understand that the universe had a beginning, you must face the observed fact that all things which begin to exist have a cause. There is no known exception to this rule.

From this point it is not hard to realize that it is God who caused the material world to burst into existence.

Once you understand that God is behind the origins of the material universe, it is not hard to expect, and indeed find, design in his creation.

What really takes faith is to be presented with evident and obvious design in creation -- the specialized cells which constitute heart, lungs, liver, eyes, all nicely and symmetrically arranged, the fact that fruit such as apples and oranges just happen to fit nicely in a man's hand, that horses just happen to be suitable size for a man to ride, that sheep just happen to provide wool, that flowers just happen to be pretty, that sunsets just happen to be beautiful, etc., and to deny that there is any design behind it.

Consider the incongruity of darwinism. If this world is strictly materialistic, if our brains have simply randomly evolved into their present states, then what faith can an evolutionist have in the integrity or reliability of his thoughts? They must be nothing more than meaningless chemical interactions. And why should non-material things like logic, love, conscience, consciousness, speculative thought, and mathematics exist? To the materialist, they can be nothing more than ultimately meaningless chemical reactions. To the evolutionist, the universe shows every sign of making sense, but doesn't; it's just a happenstance of ultimately meaningless random permutations. The very quest of a darwinist to classify, order, and "make sense" of the universe is contradicted by the darwinist's conclusion that the universe is random and meaningless.

Darwinian (materialistic, non-directed) evolution is a comfortable faith for many; it allows them to escape the Biblical witness that there is a God who has stamped his moral imprint upon our hearts, and to whom we must one day give an account.

As far as man evolving beyond war [a point made in Mr. Cohen's article], if a man evolved to the ultimate moral and ethical pinnacle, you would have Jesus Christ.

He lived two thousand years ago, and there hasn't been a man like him before or since. A "one-off"? A random mutation that unfortunately didn't catch on?

Or, as he himself proclaimed, the son of David, and, indeed, the Father's son?

A Russian teenager adopted by an American pedophile

A Russian teenager was adopted by an American pedophile. She endured years of Internet-distributed sexual torment. She is currently pleading with U.S. legislators for laws to govern cyberspace. But, liberals should ask, what about a pederast's equality rights?

Overriding the wisdom of Canada's Parliament, the judge-amended Charter of Rights asserts the legal equality of all Canadians regardless of sexual orientation. So, it would be illegal for authorities to discriminate against even known pederasts by denying them adoption rights based on their unchosen sexual orientation.

As Liberals all the way up to Prime Minister have gleefully chanted, "you can't cherry-pick rights", "a right is a right is a right", and "you can't just support the minority rights you happen to approve of".

The only question is, would the judges have the guts to equally uphold the right that they themselves created? Or, would they contradict themselves, and make a moral distinction between one sexual orientation and another? Which is exactly what moral conservatives do between heterosexuality and homosexuality. If the judges choose to discriminate, then the only difference would be where the line is drawn -- and surely that would be a matter of moral, and not rights-based, debate.

If one sexual orientation can be viewed as unnatural and disordered, then so can another.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"